About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

O'brien 4, Sacramento 4, Dooley 3, Us 3, San Francisco 2, Riley 2, Dwight 2, Adams 2, Holliday 1, Kevin Jensen 1, Campos 1, Sophia 1, Abc 1, Ncd 1, Chiu 1, Lou Randal 1, Sophie Hayward 1, Sophia Hayward 1, Katherine 1, Peralta 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    February 16, 2013
    7:00 - 7:29am PST  

7:00am
guidelines set by him to try and determine a plan that would do the least harm before moving forward on this project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is carl [speaker not understood]. i live at 8 peralta, same block. i'd like to read a short thing here. i believe no one should have a right to make any park, that any park of the already steep sidewalk steeper. some of our residents would not be able to utilize an even steeper sidewalk. within this one block in question on our side of the street, there is an elderly man who requires a wheelchair, one woman past 80 who uses a walker, another woman past 80, a man in his late 70s who has need he knee replacements and uses a cane. others in their 70s. these residents could not tolerate any part of the sidewalk made steeper. this is to notify the committee
7:01am
that if this construction is granted without disability issues addressed, you can rest assured there might be lawsuits with requests for punitive damages. * please contact public works department disability access coordinator kevin jensen at 30 van ness avenue. i tried to get in touch with him, but i'm not computer savvy and nobody answers their phone, you know. so, anyway, i would appreciate it if this would be looked into from a disability point of view. >> thank you. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? my name is lou randal. i live at the corner of peralta and [speaker not understood]. as you go through, there must be some traffic controls put in before construction starts. we've had one car destroyed from people speeding up holiday
7:02am
without a stop sign and making that right turn in front of my house. every one of the trucks that go in and out of there have had to make a u-turn in front of my house to get there and there's no stop signs from holliday or on peralta. and traffic kohl has to be part of your consideration in doing this. * control i went through dpw to try to get speed bumps put on peralta. they said they need a study [speaker not understood]. but they denied it. they said it couldn't be done. [speaker not understood]. one car totally destroyed by people speeding. [speaker not understood] thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who wish to comment today on item number 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. fong, would you like to
7:03am
respond to some of the comments we've heard? >> supervisors, john kwong for department of public works again. i'd like to thank the neighbors and citizens for providing that video. the video actually provided more clarity i think to the members of the board in this case. if you notice, they're showing the rainwater is actually running down along the retaining wall where the gutter line is and it continues to run down. and at the very end when they were showing upstream, there was a driveway cut immediately above it. so, if there was rainwater that was jumping and it would jump theoretically as they suggested, jumping over the sidewalk, jumping over the curb onto the sidewalk, it would have happened previously. the picture doesn't show that. the video didn't show that. also they showed the sidewalk that's running down behind the retaining wall. while it was wet, there was no runoff. there was no rainwater that was noticeable running in a stream like a [speaker not understood] in this case. so, there's nothing that was
7:04am
happening that we can demonstrate that can be clearly demonstrated even on the rainstorm that they're suggesting. finally, there was a previous video that showed rainwater running along the yard at the front yard area further down on a previous video on the last presentation that we provided. well, one thing we recognize. with the construction of the building as proposed, the footprint of the building, all that rainwater that would normally run down the hill as rain would be capture and had brought into the rainwater leader that would be discharged into the sewer line. that would actually reduce the amount of runoff that would run down the street. there was a suggestion also by an applicant, by one of the citizens here, that disability access was not considered. the department did as part of the evaluation the design to the disability access coordinator who evaluated the existing condition and the modified condition and determined that in this case it was an improvement over the
7:05am
existing condition and satisfied all the requirements as identified under book title 24 in a-d-a. >> can you address the issue of does it change -- in term of the change of the grade in the sidewalk? one of the public commenters mentioned that. >> yes, supervisor. it did change the grade, and actually in one instance it improved it. previously the property uphill of this site reconfigured a silo to show a 35% slope through the sidewalk area. this design reduced that 35% slope to approximately 16%, which improved the configuration of it and also made it a little less steep specifically. so, there were some improvements made to improve the walk ability of the sidewalk. >> thank you. anything else? * >> those are all the comments. the suggestion to continue the evaluation, we do not believe
7:06am
is appropriate only because in this case the reviewing engineer stating that there were concerns, but from a factual perspective stating that [speaker not understood] this satisfied the requirements. the concern was mostly over a quick software analysis, not necessarily detail of the design specifically. so, we believe the design was appropriate. its was evaluated correctly, and we don't see a reason to continue it even further as requested by some of the citizens who don't want this to move forward. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? >> if i could ask one question. the rainstorm thats depicted looked like a typical rainstorm. if we had a significant event, 20, 50 year rainstorm event, would that change your analysis? >> no. actually in this case, the analysis that was done was for the hundred-year storm, which is for every rainstorm is a 1%
7:07am
chance of happening, which is very rare in this case. and given the height of the curb, which is between 4 to 6 inches, given how steep that street is, as you can see how quickly the water is running down the street and entering the catch basin, it would actually be -- the height of the water that would go down on a major rainstorm would also be very low in this case. because you're in essence, the gravity is going to pull it down the street instead of having overflow and jump onto the sidewalk. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any other questions? president chiu, at least nominal -- >> colleagues, obviously there have been some questions raised by the neighborhood, but we have heard from our department of public works their position to the contrary. big suggest that we move this item forward but without recommendation given the issues that have arisen. i know the district supervisor will likely be weighing in on this issue at the full board. but given how long this issue has been out there, in order
7:08am
for us to make a decision my suggestion is we move this forward without, again, the necessarily the support, but moving it through the process so that we can have a final vote on this at the full board. so, that would be my motion. >> thank you. further comment? >> i was going to say the same. i'm happy to second that motion to move it forward with no recommendation and also give our district supervisor an opportunity to weigh in as well. i know [speaker not understood] is watching this hearing. regarding the public comment about traffic cowving work that can be done on peralta, i'm sure they have taken that into account. thank you. >> i do agree that it's appropriate to put this forward with no recommendation because i think it is important for the district supervisor who is most familiar with all the surrounding circumstances to weigh in at the full board. last time this was at the full board, supervisor campos did send it back to committee, and i think we vote -- the board unanimously supported that request. given the holiday next week, we
7:09am
have two weeks between now and the february 25th board meeting. so, ample time for discussion. so, colleagues, if there is no further discussion, can we take that motion without objection? that will be the order. is there any more business before the committee, mr. clerk? >> this completes the agenda for today. >> thank you. we are adjourned. [adjourned] s commission meeting
7:10am
7:11am
7:12am
7:13am
7:14am
7:15am
7:16am
time is now 5:33 p.m. and the meeting is being called to order. at this time, please turn off cell phones and pagers and please sign up at the front table if you like to be added to the mailing list. public comment will be taken on each item and speaker cards are available at the front table. we would like to thank sfgtv for the continued support of our meetings. >> roll call, commissioner adams? >> here. commissioner dooley? >> here. >> commissioner dwight. >> here. >> commissioner o'brien? >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena notified me that he will be joining us shortly. >> commissioner white? >> here. >> commissioner rock-n-lock?
7:17am
commissioner riley. >> approval of the minutes, documents draft, january 13th, due to revisions that were being made we do not have them available and we request a continuance to the next meeting. >> i move a continuance to the next meeting. >> i second. >> and all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> next item? >> commissioners, item three is general public comment, this allows the members of the public to comment in matters of the commission in the purview and suggestion for the future consideration, do we have any members of the general public here who would like to make a comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. next? >> item four, discussion and possible action to make
7:18am
recommendations on the board of supervisors, on board of supervisors file no, 130042, planning code, medical service use, sacramento neighborhood commercial district. commissioners in the binder is the file number along with the legislative digest. we had schedule, cathrine stefani and she was not able nher place we have sophia hayward. >> the proposed ordinance will amend the planning code to permit a change of use from business to professional business to medical service use on the first floor or below within the sacramento street, neighborhood commercial district. which is a five-block stretch along sacramento street from spruce street rather to lion street in san francisco.
7:19am
so basically the way that it is now, is that new medical services are prohibited at the ground floor and below, and when i say below there are a number of retail storefronts that are accessed by descending from the sidewalk from the half submerged level below the street. >> if it is adopted a change of use from business to professional service to medical service would be permitted providing that no residential use or active street frontage is lost. >> the planning department is recommending approval of this with minor modifications. the reason for that is that the department's position is that the language for the amendment is restrictive enough that the amrik ability is limited this
7:20am
will effect a handful of properties. if you have questions i will try to answer in behalf of planning, and i apologize that katherine is not here. >> could you tell me what an active street frontage means? >> i can, i am sorry, i have a footnote and i think that i actually have the definition in the planning coat and the planning department case report so i can read it to you if it helps. it is a specific definition within the planning code, and within the neighborhood commercial districts, active uses are as follows. any principle, conditional or accessory use which by it nature does not require non-transparent walls. generally, that means, any reduction use that requires a solid wall that will block off the street frontage will be prohibited. in this specific case, there
7:21am
was formerly a publishing use in that space, that was categorized as a small business use, not as a industrial use of any sort. >> commissioner o'brien? >> i was just curious, actually that the first question is going to ask you is what the services do you have in mind, but i think that those are the ones that you just listed there under 79, 114, those are the ones that you are allowing that are not allowed today. >> who is driving this? where did this idea come from? >> the proposed ordinance is supervised by supervisor ferrell and may be in response to a specific business in the ntd. >> thank you >> any other commissioner questions? >> i have just, i guess that i have a recommendation, so that will wait. >> any other commissioner comments? >> i have one. >> commissioner riley? >> yes. could you give any some
7:22am
background information as to why the medical services were prohibited in the area? >> yes, i believe that at the time of the ncd controls were passed for the specific area, there was concern by the neighborhood group in the area, which i believe is fan the procidio heights. were concerned that there was an over concentration of medical uses that were at the first floor or below. >> okay. >> thank you >> commissioner dwight? >> does medical marijuana fall into this category? >> it does not. >> commissioner white? >> yes, you said that it was prohibited before? so is the out reach with the association in agreement with this now? >> i understand this, but yes, they are supportive of the
7:23am
ordinance. >> and they have not received it with the ordinances. >> i inquired with the sponsor and they confirmed that the organizations were in support of the proposal. >> okay, any other commissioner comments? >> okay. we are going to open it up right now to public comment. do we have public comment on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. and any other commissioner recommendations, or approvals. >> i have a recommendation that we might want to add an amendment that all of the windows in the front of these businesses remain transparent and open, so that we don't have that experience of like a blank space. >> sophia, the planning staff.
7:24am
i believe there are planning controls in place that will prohibit closing off the windows to, the controls encourage the maintenance of an active street frontage and i believe that it will be prohibited to close them off. >> thank you. >> i have no objection to this. it seems like everybody wants it and the local people want this. so i would move to support this legislation as it is being presented. >> second. >> roll call? >> commissioners? we have a motion from commissioner o'brien to recommend approval to the board of supervisor of file number 1 30042 planning code medical service use sacramento neighborhood commercial district. seconded by commissioner dooley. on that motion, commissioner adams? >> aye. >> commissioner dooley?
7:25am
>> yes. >> dwight in >> yes. >> ortiz-cartagena is absent. >> o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> aye. >> that motion passes 6-0. >> great. >> thank you, the next item please,? >> commissioners you are now on item number five, presentation and discussion of the alcohol restricted use districts rud's in the city of san francisco, presentation by sophie hayward planning department staff. >> welcome. >> i have a hand out that may be helpful. so i will just step over here in a moment. >> i'm from the planning department staff, legislative affairs and thank you for having us, me this evening. i'm here just to give you a very general overview of our alcohol restricted use
7:26am
districts as defined in the planning code and what i am passing out to you now is a two-sided hand out that is including the map of our alcohol restricted districts and on the opposite side there is a chart that identifies each district and then it outlines whether or not it includes a restriction of bars, restaurants, liquor stores, and how they deal with abandonment. if you like i would put this up on the board? >> for the benefit of the public, if you could put the chart and just for a moment so the folks can see. >> sure. >> as the map indicates, we have 7 districts that specifically restrict alcohol-related uses, and with those uses they include, on and
7:27am
off site consumption. in general the alcohol used districts and i may as well call them ruds are introduced as legislation by district supervisors to deal with health and welfare in a geographic area. for each district, findings are made that note that the number of establishments that sell the alcohol in the district and associated problems, and a concern is typical across all of these ruds, that these outlets, these locations discourage more desirable and needed commercial uses within the area. ruds can prohibt based on abc license types or they could be restricted by use type as defined in the planning code. most distinguish between on site and off site consumption
7:28am
and whether it is served within a restaurant. if you turn to the chart on the back. you will see that many, ruds allow new alcohol establishments that are established restaurant where they may restrict, bars, and i think that all of them restrict new liquor stores. ruds also address the transfer of existing liquor licenses within a geographic boundary and, that is very often a point of much discussion of the establishment of a new rud. whether there should be any new liquor licenses allowed in the area or whether or not existing licenses can be transferred. and i believe that we have one, yes, we have one alcohol restricted use district in which you are not allowed to transfer existing licenses, within the district. most districts you are allowed
7:29am
to transfer them with conditional use by the planning commission. >> and as i said, most recently established or amended ruds have supported relocations, for the most part, the issues that generally come up with the establishment of a new rud have to do with prohibting the land use, verses controlling an operator and what i mean, the difference is that in terms of land use, there is not so, so much difference between a liquor store and a small grocery store, for example. it is just what is on the specific shelf. however there could be a very big difference in how the operators are perceived in the area between a liquor store and say a especially wine shop and so a lot of those happen around the time that an rud is formed. >> in some cases by establishing an rud,